Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Climate Change: What is he doing to help New Zealand adapt to the effects of climate change?

I thank the member for her question. Last month I released the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group’s stocktake on the risks and impacts of climate change, as well as renewed guidance to local councils on sea level rise. In April of this year, the adaptation technical working group will release its second report, which is on policy options to respond to the challenge. I think this will form a good basis for the much-needed strong national direction that we need to take on dealing with the effects of climate change on farmers, on local communities, and on infrastructure in New Zealand.

💬 Marama Davidson: Why is it important for our communities to adapt to the effects of climate change?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: I think sometimes in New Zealand we think of climate change as happening somewhere else to someone else in the future, but as the mercury hit 40 degrees in some parts of New Zealand yesterday—while I acknowledge that it’s been a spectacular summer for many people, it’s pretty obvious that we can’t ignore the very serious impacts of climate change in terms of droughts or more frequent storms, floods, and fires. My visit to Dunedin yesterday brought home the very real concerns that people have got in that city in particular about the threat of rising seas and increasingly severe and frequent flood events.

💬 Marama Davidson: What did the Minister learn in Dunedin yesterday about communities facing the effects of climate change?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: My visit yesterday gave me an opportunity to meet with the Greater South Dunedin Action Group, the mayor and city councillors, the chancellor and vice-chancellor of the university, and the local member of Parliament, Clare Curran, to look around some of the low-lying areas of South Dunedin and central Dunedin. It’s immediately apparent to me that this is a community that is deeply engaged with the questions around the need for a long-term strategic plan to deal with the effects of climate change and to adapt to it. I was very encouraged that that community is looking to take a leadership position and see it as an opportunity to get ahead of the adaptation challenge, and then to offer the lessons learnt to other communities around the country that will also be dealing with the same set of challenges.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress being made on adapting to climate change?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: No, I’m not satisfied at the moment. I think that there have been a number of very significant and really useful pieces of work, some of which were initiated by the previous Government, such as the stocktake report and the coastal hazards guidance that I referred to before, which give us an indication of the scale of the challenge. Certainly, there are some councils and organisations around the country that are leading on this, and I do want to acknowledge their work, but I have to say I do not think that we are there yet. It’s very clear to me, particularly after this summer, that we need a more comprehensive nationwide risk assessment and to plan as a country rather than to leave it up to individual councils. That is why I’m making adaptation to the effects of climate change one of our top priorities of work for our programme this year.

Social Services Targets—Government Measures

2. to the Prime Minister: Does her Government intend to retain the Better Public Service Targets to reduce the number of people on a benefit by 25 percent, reduce the number of serious crimes being committed by 10,000, and reduce the number of children hospitalised for preventable conditions by 25 percent?

No. We will have our own system for monitoring and reporting on performance against our priorities. Our targets will reflect our different priorities from the previous Government and will look beyond simple measures and, in fact, to underlying causes.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Did the Prime Minister consider past success of selected targets that addressed areas of persistent social dysfunction, such as reducing welfare dependency, reducing reoffending rates for criminals, holding the numbers of children affected by child abuse, and lifting educational attainment among Māori and Pacific students?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s fair to say that probably all Governments share an ambition for reducing crime and improving employment. Our point is that we have a set of priorities that get to the root cause of some of the issues that we’re seeing in New Zealand. A great example, for instance, would be our ambition to measure and target directly issues like child poverty. That’s getting to the root cause of an issue rather than just some of the symptoms, as past Better Public Services (BPS) targets did.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Why does the Government persist with the view that poverty in New Zealand is purely a function of income, when the evidence is overwhelming that low educational achievement, family violence, long-term welfare dependency, and serial criminal offending have a huge impact on persistent deprivation and material hardship?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the evidence points to material hardship as being one of the most consistent drivers of poor outcomes for children. We’ve never argued that that in and of itself was the only issue that needs to be looked at, which is why, of course, we’re also requiring—and will, as a Government, focus more broadly on—a child well-being strategy for the very reasons that the past Minister points out.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government is therefore going to abandon a focused approach to social dysfunction, caused by the factors that I’ve referred to, and limit its approach to addressing deprivation simply to the measurement of income?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because, in fact, as the member well knows, we’ve also included material hardship as one of the things that we would like to include and hold ourselves to account on. Our point is that we, in fact, want to be broader in the accountabilities we hold ourselves to as a Government. The BPS targets that the last Government had were quite narrowly focused. They looked at symptoms rather than root causes, and in some cases were manipulated and didn’t lead to improved outcomes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will it help in the efficacy of future measurements that she discovered family and child poverty before she entered Government, not nine years after it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. We have long held a view, based on research and evidence, that if we wanted to improve the well-being of children we could not ignore poverty as long as the last Government chose to.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen comments by the State Services Commissioner, who said that the Better Public Services targets achieved real results: “More kids are getting immunised. Fewer kids are being physically abused. Participation in early childhood is on the increase. [And] 40,000 fewer working age people are receiving benefits compared with three years ago. That’s a whole bunch of things that change lives.”, and why does she think that achieving those things doesn’t change lives and ought to be stopped?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This Government has no problem with the issue of targets, with priority setting, with goals as a way to drive the focus from the Public Service and the Government. Our point is we will have our own. In fact, the last Government changed their own targets several times during their time in Government, and it will not surprise the member that we have a different set of priorities—a broader set of priorities—than them.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government’s priority is the measurement of income only, and the other factors that determine material hardship and deprivation reflected in the targets set by the previous Government are now going to be ignored by the new Government—factors such as persistent—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think the member—[Interruption] Order! I’ll just ask the Leader of the Opposition to shorten his questions up to one or two, rather than three or four.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Has the Prime Minister seen the data that show that maternal and baby care are much more likely to be satisfactory when mothers enrol with their lead maternity carer in the first trimester of their pregnancy, and has she instructed the Public Service to stop focusing on that measure, which was initiated in May last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am being very consistent in the point here that we need to be much broader in the goals that we set ourselves. I take, for example, the rheumatic fever Better Public Services target that the last Government set. That did nothing to resolve the long-term driver of rheumatic fever, which is cold, damp, overcrowded housing. In the same way, if we want to improve maternal outcomes, we have to look at the barriers as to why women aren’t enrolling with lead maternity carers, and they are complex and often involve deprivation.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that the target that was set to lift to 90 percent the proportion of women enrolled in the first trimester with their lead maternity carer has now been abandoned, and if so, why?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have our own set of priorities. They will be replaced, and they’ll be released in good time.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: So can I take it, then, the Prime Minister is confirming that target has been abandoned, and people working in social and health services are no longer to be trying to enrol women earlier? And if she has abandoned it, what other measures has she taken to ensure that those women who weren’t enrolled will get better maternal care in the next 12 months?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The implication that those who work in our health services will no longer be interested in the health and well-being of pregnant women in New Zealand is, frankly, an insult. Of course they are, but we’re also saying that this Government’s priority is that those mothers also have decent housing, that they are free of harm and abuse, and that they have decent incomes. We want to get to the root cause of problems, not just the short-term issues.

Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures and Reporting

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

In the context in which they were given, yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement that “My Government will have a key focus on reducing child poverty.”; and, if so, how many children will be moved out of poverty due to her mini-Budget announcement at the end of last year, given Treasury have admitted they got their analysis wrong?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, absolutely we stand by our ambition to improve the well-being of children and, particularly, the incomes of the households they live in. As the member will be aware, Treasury has acknowledged that there were issues with their modelling, and that the numbers that we used at the time of the mini-Budget were inaccurate. We’re waiting for those figures to be redone, and, as soon as they are, we’ll provide them. My understanding is that the effect of that modelling error is far-reaching, and has affected the last Government’s numbers as well.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So if reducing child poverty is her priority, then when will she be able to tell New Zealanders what her package will actually be able to do? It’s been weeks, and over a month, and I would’ve thought that would be a priority—to be able to give the numbers.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, look, as the member knows, we actually released what we believed to be the impact at the time. Treasury has since said that their modelling was incorrect. That affects the last Government’s numbers as well, so my question to the Opposition would be: what impact would your Budget have had? It is a plague on all our houses. We wait keenly for that information, because I’m as keen to share it with this House as the member is.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was purposely not political. I’m just interested in when we might have a number. I freely admit that it was when the Opposition was—

💬 SPEAKER: And—[Interruption] Order! I heard the Prime Minister say that the material is not available yet and would be released when it was. I don’t think one can be more specific than that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How will the Government monitor and report whether organisations that work with vulnerable children and receive taxpayers’ funding are making a difference?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Accountability in that area is, of course, important. What we’re talking about at the moment, though, is the accountability of the Government to make sure that we’re directing resource into doing all we can to lift families on low incomes out of deprivation and hardship. But, of course, we keep organisations to the same transparency and accountability standards as any Government would.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So will she or any of her Ministers be putting in a bid to increase funding for organisations that are working with vulnerable children for this year’s Budget?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our focus on vulnerable children is consistent. In fact, we’re proposing that we retain the action plan around vulnerable children that the last Government floated. But Budget bids will be revealed at the time that the Budget is announced.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So will the Prime Minister or any of her Ministers actually put in a bid to retain the funding for KidsCan, or increase it, when it does such crucial work for New Zealand’s children that need it most?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve already outlined in past questions, that will be made clear at the time Budget bids are revealed as part of Budget 2018.

💬 David Seymour: How will the Prime Minister convince the public that the Government’s new statistical invented poverty measure is more credible than the last one?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In fact, there is an internationally robust set of measures used by the OECD, used by UNICEF, that only seem to be in dispute by ACT.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 3—Tamati Coffey.

💬 Tamati Coffey: Ah, that’d be 4, but thank you. Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

💬 SPEAKER: Well, you’re certainly not Paula Bennett.

Government Financial Position—Reports

4. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the Government’s finances?

Last week, Treasury released the financial statements of the Government for the five months to November. These showed core Crown tax revenue of $30.4 billion—$530 million higher than forecast. The operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) was a surplus of $125 million, against a forecast deficit at the time of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) of $457 million. When gains and losses are added to the OBEGAL result, the operating balance was a $2.4 billion surplus—$0.7 billion higher than forecast.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What does the increased core Crown tax revenue indicate for the wider economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s early days, and, as Treasury states, it is too early to establish with certainty whether this will persist. However, it’s pleasing to see business profits and economic activity holding up as the end of the year approaches. This is in line with a positive business sentiment regarding their own activities, which history tells us correlates to future GDP growth.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What do the financial statements show in terms of core Crown net debt?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is committed to a responsible debt reduction track so that net debt is below 20 percent of GDP within five years of this Government taking office. The Government accounts showed core Crown net debt was 22.2 percent of GDP at the end of November, against the HYEFU forecast of 22.5 percent.

Business Confidence—Actions and Reports

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that you’ve allowed this question to be put down to the Minister of Finance.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s absolutely right.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: However, your ruling prior to Christmas was that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility for the types of reports that are referenced in this question. So my question to you is if the Minister gives an answer to, effectively, the first part of the question, which is around business confidence, but not the second part of the question, which is of course linked to the first part of the question, about the specific reports, is that in order?

Well, we’ll see.

5. to the Minister of Finance: What is the current level of net business confidence as expressed by each of the ANZ Business Outlook survey and the NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion?

Let’s see. There are many measures of business confidence, and, overall, I’m hearing that firms are confident about the prospects for their own businesses. I do acknowledge that confidence about the wider economic environment is not as high. In terms of the specific surveys raised in the member’s question, as these are not Government surveys, and I have no role in their collation or methodology, I therefore have no ministerial responsibility for the specific details within them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I want the point of order. What I want is Mr Joyce to ask the question again.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that opportunity. What is the current level of net business confidence as expressed by each of the ANZ Business Outlook survey and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s (NZIER’s) Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion?

💬 SPEAKER: And before Mr Robertson answers the question, I will indicate to him that it is an acceptable answer to say that he has not seen or read those reports, if that is the case, but if he has seen and read a report in an area for which he is responsible, then he will answer the question.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not challenging that ruling—

💬 SPEAKER: Not at all!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —but just to be clear that that is a different ruling than the one you gave last year.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I have looked very carefully, as the member is aware, at the ruling that I gave in that area. I’ve looked at it for two reasons: firstly, because it was a matter that was referred to me, and, secondly, in respect of this question. Ministers are not responsible for the reports, and they do not receive them, but if they have seen them, they can be questioned on them.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fair enough. The surveys the member refers to were for December 2017, a month in which a new record was set for New Zealand exports. The ANZ Business Outlook survey showed that a net 38 percent of businesses have a negative view about the year ahead, a slight bounce from November, and similar to the levels seen in 2015. In terms of their own activity, businesses are reporting a net 16 percent positive view. The NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion for the December 2017 quarter gave a headline reading that continued a downward trend that began in December 2016, showing a net 11 percent of firms expect economic conditions to worsen in the coming months. In terms of their own expected business, they reported a net 18 percent positive view.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Is the Minister aware exactly how long it has been since the ANZ Business Outlook survey had net business confidence so low—negative 38 percent and negative 39 percent—in the last two monthly surveys respectively?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What is the current level of net small business confidence, as expressed in the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey, and how long has it been since the level of small business confidence has been so low in that survey?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information with me.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What does the Minister think has changed within the New Zealand economy over the last five months that has led businesses to report that their own activity outlook is now less than half what it was in August last year, despite the global economic outlook improving over the same period?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Businesses have, as I said in my primary answer, generally a net positive view of their own future prospects. That’s what correlates with overall future GDP growth. I believe that businesses see that there is a positive year ahead both for the global economy and the New Zealand economy. What I would say is that there was a trend that began in December 2016 of declining confidence in the overall economic conditions, which coincided with the event involving the former Minister becoming a Minister.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Does the finance Minister accept that firms’ own activity confidence, which he’s mentioned a couple of times in his answers, has also halved in the last few months?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can say about the confidence that businesses have in their own activity is that it’s come back up from September 2017 and it sits above the long-run average.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of the questions, so I waited until the end. Last year, you ruled that a Government backbencher could not ask a Minister whether they had seen the reports of the nature that we have just mentioned, and therefore they could ask only if they had received the reports. You’ve now indicated that if a Minister has seen a report, they can be questioned on it. So my question to you is how can a member establish whether a Minister has seen a report if they’re not allowed to ask them?

💬 SPEAKER: I think the appropriate way of doing it is to ask, as the member did, a question that is in the core area of the Minister’s responsibility and have a second leg that can help establish it. Before the member asks, I just want to indicate to the National Party that they do have two additional supplementary questions as a result of interjections from Government benches while the member was asking previously.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Has the Minister considered that instead of offering counter-statistics, he should take steps to reassure businesses and improve their confidence, which has obviously dropped in the few months since the Government has taken office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re working closely with the business community to make sure they understand the direction of travel of this Government and to make sure they understand our desire to lift exports, to diversify the economy, and to grow jobs that actually deliver to all New Zealanders. I do note that there is a range of surveys about confidence in the economy that come out. If we look at the surveys around employee confidence and consumer confidence, they’re doing well.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Rather than those sorts of responses, what action is he going to take to reassure businesses that this Government will respond to their concerns about Government policy changes in areas like employment law, immigration law, infrastructure commitments, resource management laws, housing laws, investment rules—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to rule the question out and ask the previous Minister to rephrase it in areas that are Mr Robertson’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What action is the Minister actually going to take to reassure businesses that this Labour-led Government will respond to their concerns in a whole range of policy areas that affect business, including such things as investment rules and tax law?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, we’ve appointed a tax working group, which contains a range of representatives of businesses, including the chief executive of Business New Zealand, Kirk Hope, who, I noticed the other day, when speaking about our Government policy, said, “This decision shows the Government has an understanding of the needs and pressures facing small businesses.”

Employment Relations—90-day Trial Period and Law Changes

6. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why has the Government decided to retain 90-day trials for businesses with fewer than 20 employees?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has decided to retain 90-day trial periods for small businesses because, in the context of a bill that restores a range of workers’ rights that were stripped away by the previous Government, we believe this policy strikes the right balance between the rights of working New Zealanders and the needs of small business.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the chief executive of Business New Zealand, which the finance Minister just quoted, when he said that “The reality was [that 90-day trial periods were] enabling employers to take chances on, in particular, younger and less experienced workers and [give] them a shot?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I certainly respect the views of Mr Hope, but in this case the evidence that was commissioned by the previous Government doesn’t really back that statement up.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he read, then, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment research report into 90-day trials, which found that a third of employers surveyed said that the 90-day provision has led them to hire people that they otherwise would not have?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I certainly have read that report, and I would note that a lot of the research commissioned by the previous Government surveyed the views of employers but never once asked the views of workers.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What have been the reactions of employers and workers to the announcement of the employment law changes?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Both businesses and unions have welcomed the collaborative and constructive approach that this Government is taking to industrial relations. The Minister of Finance has already quoted Kirk Hope, so I will quote Chris Lewis from Federated Farmers, who said that “This bill will give farmers renewed confidence. The decision is especially good for small businesses.”

💬 Hon Amy Adams: In light of the information in my previous supplementaries, why does the Minister want younger, inexperienced, and vulnerable workers to miss out on opportunities to prove themselves amongst the 70 percent of New Zealand jobs that will now be excluded from 90-day trials?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is simply not the case. There is one robust piece of research into 90-day trials that was commissioned by Treasury, and it found that there was absolutely no impact on hiring intentions or on job opportunities for young, vulnerable workers.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, is the Minister confident that New Zealand will continue to create new jobs at the rate of at least 10,000 new jobs a month, as it has for the past two years?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am confident that New Zealand will continue to create new jobs at a pace that is reflective of the global economic conditions.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So in the employment law bill that the member has now tabled in the House, can he confirm whether the 20 employee threshold applies to 20 full-time equivalents, or does it penalise those using job share and part-time arrangements by taking them over the cap?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It will apply exactly as it was introduced by the National Government back in 2010.

Teachers—Teaching Council of Aotearoa

7. to the Minister of Education: Is the Government committed to raising the status of the teaching profession and giving it more control of its own affairs; if so, what actions is he taking to fulfil this commitment?

Absolutely, yes. Today the House will be debating the first reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. This bill restores democracy to the teaching profession, giving teachers the right to elect the majority of members to the governing body of their own professional organisation. This is yet another step this Government is taking to begin to restore trust and confidence within the teaching community.

💬 Jan Tinetti: How will the different parts of the teaching profession be represented on the Teaching Council?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’ll be seven elected representatives on the Teaching Council. They are a representative of primary teachers, secondary teachers, and early childhood teachers; a representative of teacher educators; a representative of primary and secondary principals, one each; and a representative of early childhood leaders. Teaching is a diverse community and the membership of the council reflects that. The balance of six members will be appointed by the Minister.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What advice has he seen about the merits of the current provisions for the Minister to appoint all members of the Education Council?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When these provisions were introduced, they were overwhelmingly opposed. We saw quotes, including “Democracy appears to be so inconvenient for [the previous Government that] the only way they can control and corporatize education is to legislate [it].” This Government believes that the teaching profession deserve to have the same autonomy that we give to doctors, to lawyers, to nurses, and to many other professions. We trust teachers, we respect them, and we believe that they should have a say in how their profession is governed.

Education, National Standards—Removal

8. to the Minister of Education: As of the start of the 2018 school year, how many schools are keeping National Standards in place?

National standards are no longer an instrument of Government policy. The Ministry of Education does not require schools to fill in paperwork about any tools they might choose to use to assess and report on students’ progress, whether they be AsTTle, PaCT, national standards, or any other tool. I have been clear that schools should choose an approach that works best for their communities whilst ensuring that parents receive clear and regular reporting.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he now saying that no school is allowed to keep their system of national standards?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Given that he can’t tell the country how many schools are keeping national standards, what information enabled him to make the claim that the vast bulk of them do agree with getting rid of national standards?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I read the newspaper, I watch the television, and I receive a huge array of feedback from those working in education.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: When does he expect to give a clearer direction to schools about what will actually replace national standards, given the statement by Sandra Smith, principal of Linwood North School, who said, “We haven’t [had] any clear direction from our new Government as to what is to replace national standards.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d advise her to open her email, because she received advice from the Ministry of Education’s regional director before Christmas about the removal of national standards and what schools should do in place of them. She also received a range of advice from other professional organisations in the educational community about what should replace national standards.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer and his statement in response to the criticisms of the Government by the principal of Linwood North School that “Well it could be a communication issue, I suspect. Or it could be a bit of politics. Not every school in the country is going to agree with this.”, is he accusing all schools that have chosen to keep national standards of failing to understand him or being political?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, and no.

Mental Health Services—Funding

9. to the Minister of Health: How much money was appropriated in Budget 2017 for mental health?

Out of the $16.7 billion budgeted for Vote Health, I’m advised by the Ministry of Health that it’s impossible to say how much was appropriated for mental health specifically.

💬 Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister’s doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health in Budget 2017 when she said to media, “You’re assuming it was real.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is about appropriated expenditure. The member is now raising the issue of unappropriated expenditure.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, and while I understand the background of the member, and the fact that as a former Treasury official, he has very good knowledge about the difference, I think we shouldn’t expect every member of Parliament to have that detail. I think that question comes close enough.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, Mr Speaker, would the member please repeat the question, in that case.

💬 SPEAKER: Sure.

💬 Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister’s doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health when she said to media, “You’re assuming it was real.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes.

💬 Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, where is that $100 million being redirected to, considering that amount was set aside solely for mental health in Budget 2017?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That money was not appropriated.

💬 Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying that he has received no advice from officials that the $100 million does, in fact, exist, and that advice has been given to the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I might be able to assist the member. The money has not been appropriated. There was a contingency fund in the fiscal forecasts and the previous Government had taken no decision on any initiatives that it had spoken to. There are some initiatives that clearly were in their infancy—poorly thought-through some of them—and, over nine years, it had not taken any action on the front that it was advertising.

💬 Matt Doocey: Which of the 17 mental health projects identified by the previous Government in concert with Government agencies, the Chief Science Advisor, and the mental health sector will be missing out as a result of this redirection of money?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Some of those ideas, which I state again, were in their infancy, had some useful evidence behind them. We will develop those ideas that had useful evidence. This Government will get on with the job of making sure that mental health is a priority. It won’t take us nine years to make a meaningful difference in mental health.

💬 Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I get an answer that clearly outlines which projects?

💬 SPEAKER: In fact, if I wanted to take the technical approach that the Minister did at the beginning, I would have ruled the whole question out. I think it is very hard to get an answer about unappropriated expenditure. You can’t take something away that hasn’t been given.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a difference, obviously, in wording in the nomenclature here, but it’s important that the House doesn’t trip itself up on it, because some money can be set aside in a contingency fund and not necessarily be finally appropriated. I appreciate that’s a fine distinction but I think, to the public, money being set aside is actually set aside, and the fact that it’s yet to be finally appropriated is a technical distinction which the Minister is—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I did spend quite a lot of time dealing with these matters, and I give him an absolute assurance that lots of money that goes into contingency funds don’t make their way to the things where they may. That is not taking something away, because it hasn’t yet been given. The decision to appropriate is that decision.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he has discerned a pattern of announcements with respect to the contingency fund not yet appropriated in a number of areas of medicine and elsewhere as well?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There have been a lot of promises made under the previous term of the previous Government without the delivery that was needed to deliver on those promises. This is an unfortunate pattern—the member is right.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you don’t like me reflecting on your decisions, but I do like to occasionally reflect for a short period of time—

💬 SPEAKER: The member is getting a bit of latitude—first day back.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Well, I am just concerned that this is, indeed, a debatable point. There’s no doubt that the money was set aside. It was announced; it’s in the Budget documents. My colleague is attempting to question the Minister on what happened to the money. I appreciate he is hiding behind the lack of an appropriation, but it is actually in—

💬 SPEAKER: On that note, the member will resume his seat. What I would like is for the member if he is going to make a point of order, to make it around the Standing Orders and around Speakers’ rulings, and not to reflect on other members or attempt to make political points. If he does, he’ll be stopped immediately.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well—sorry; I’m actually part way through hearing the Hon Steven Joyce. Can we let him finish? He’s finished has he? Right.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Well, if that’s the criteria, it’s this: the Speaker has no role determining whether questions are in or out of order depending on whether the money is in a contingency fund or appropriated. It’s not the Speaker’s job; it’s a debatable matter for the House. That announcement was made in this House as part of a Budget. It’s legitimate debating material. It was widely publicised, welcomed by the sector. With respect, it is not your role to say the question can’t be answered on the basis of the technicalities of appropriation. It’s simply wrong.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second point made by Mr Doocey was: where has the money gone that was set aside? That was the second question, and the rest of it just fell apart after that.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I will stand up. I wouldn’t have put it quite like that, but technically, right back at the beginning, the honourable Minister was correct. I was probably a little kinder than I should have been, to let a certain number of questions run. Whether something is appropriated or not, we had an assurance from the Minister, so at that point it is not a debating matter or at question time when the Minister’s word has to be taken. I probably should’ve stopped two or three of the other supplementaries from Mr Doocey, but I decided—I know that people are very interested in this area of policy—notwithstanding the fact that technically they were not well expressed, I decided to let them go so that there could be comment on them in the House.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the technical basis on which you would’ve ruled the questions out of order?

💬 SPEAKER: We had an assurance from the Minister that the money had not been appropriated and we had further questions from Mr Doocey that worked on the basis that they were.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where does it say in the Standing Orders that Parliament can’t discuss money that has been announced, is placed in a contingency, but is not finally appropriated? That would be a Standing Orders’ innovation that, in 27 years, I’ve never heard.

💬 SPEAKER: And I didn’t so rule. [Interruption] Mr Hipkins is probably lucky that I wasn’t standing up, because he might have been standing up.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the ruling?

💬 SPEAKER: The ruling was that, actually, Dr Clark was accurate in his comments at the beginning. The initial question and some of the obviously well-prepared supplementaries flowed from a question of appropriation, and Dr Clark did point out that the supplementaries were, in fact, about money that failed at that first hurdle.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Yes, it’s a fresh point of order in relation to the same question. Dr Clark, in his answer to that question, said that he couldn’t say how much had been appropriated for mental health, and yet we are now talking about the level of exactitude about what is and isn’t appropriated, which would suggest, with respect, that he could say—because you’d know what was appropriated and what isn’t. He can’t have it both ways—on the one hand, saying he knows exactly what is appropriated and what isn’t, but he’s unable to answer the primary question.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member might reflect on that, and he might want to come and see me afterwards and I’ll give some further explanations.

Mental Health Services—Inquiry and Policies

10. to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve mental health in New Zealand?

On 23 January, the Government announced details of our ministerial inquiry into mental health and addiction services. The inquiry will report back to the Government by the end of October. It represents an important step in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of our community response to mental health and of the response of the broader mental health system.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What’s the scope of the inquiry into mental health and addiction services?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The terms of reference of the independent inquiry are deliberately broad. It will have a particular focus on equity of access to quality service and better outcomes. Nothing is off the table. We know that we have a problem with mental health in this country and that our suicide rate is shameful. This inquiry will look at all factors that may contribute to this.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Apart from establishing an inquiry into mental health and addiction services, what other plans does the Government have to improve mental health for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The inquiry is a vital step towards improving our approach to mental health and addiction, but we won’t just wait in the meantime. Where we have evidence-based policies that can help right now, we will act. This includes pushing ahead with our plans for more school-based mental health services and lowering the costs of visiting a GP by $10 for all New Zealanders. We know that GPs are often the first port of call when people face these issues. It will not take us nine years to make meaningful gains in mental health.

Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Changes and Process

11. to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Will he release the full text of the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the national interest analysis before it is signed on 8 March this year; if not, why not?

New Zealand is pushing for the release of the text as soon as possible. The formal text, in English, is currently being checked to ensure it reflects what was agreed last week. The English text will then be translated into French and Spanish, which is important to the countries that don’t speak English as their first language. These translations will then need to be legally verified, and all of this has to be completed by 8 March. In the meantime, the 2016 text is available in detail, as is a summary description of the suspensions agreed. In respect of the national interest analysis, I’ve directed that that be released prior to 8 March.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Is he telling the House and the public that they should read a text that was published first in 2016 that his party hasn’t voted for?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member answers, I will indicate that a further two supplementaries have been granted to the National Party as a result of Government bench interjections.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: What I’m saying is that the bulk of the text is in this form of this long-published agreement, that the suspensions have been well described, and that there is nothing being hidden from the public.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Will he put the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) text before Parliament for debate and a vote prior to signature, as proposed in a New Zealand First member’s bill, which Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First all voted for, in Opposition, last year?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The 600 pages of text have already been before this Parliament. The suspended provisions are well described on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade site. I don’t envisage that the revision, including those two, will be put to Parliament before it’s signed on 8 March.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: When claiming that the agreement has some of the highest standards ever negotiated by New Zealand, were the Treaty of Waitangi, labour, environment, or market access provisions improved in the revised TPP agreement?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the Treaty provision, I would say that most Māori were most concerned that the Treaty provisions be given effect to not just through the Treaty clause but through companion legislation, which did something that’s very important to Māoridom, which is protect the New Zealand land homeownership market as a New Zealand market. Māoridom suffered a greater decrease in homeownership rates than the general decrease that was experienced under the last Government.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I ask again: when claiming that the agreement had some of the highest standards ever negotiated by New Zealand, were the Treaty of Waitangi, the labour, the environment, or the market access provisions improved in the revised TPP agreement—the actual clauses, not anything else he may claim to have done?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The market access provisions are substantially unchanged. We did have to parry attempts by both Japan and Canada to push back New Zealand, but were successful in opposing those measures. There are significant changes in the agreement, including the breadth of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. For me, the most significant point is that we have managed to do what the last Government said was impossible, which is to protect New Zealanders’ right to control who buys our homes, at the same time as having trade agreements.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he received regarding the compatibility of a ban on overseas house buyers with our trade agreements, including the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I have read a number of reports incorrectly claiming that we had to choose between banning overseas buyers and our trade relationships. That’s clearly not the case. One report claimed, and I quote: “A ban would force New Zealand to renegotiate many of our trade agreements. We would be likely to lose some trade access as a result of renegotiations, which would harm New Zealand companies and Kiwi jobs.” The same member who said that last month said the TPP is now not going to be signed because Canada has decided they don’t want to do it. Sadly, former Minister Todd McClay was wrong on both occasions.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that we have taken the totally unacceptable, in terms of sovereignty, on land and house acquisition in this country, and on the investors disputes provisions—we’ve taken them from the unacceptable to the acceptable, so much so that even Donald Trump’s now talking about joining back in?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed, we have made major improvements. I’ve already covered the land ones. The ISDS clauses are narrowed as to scope. Under the last Government, a foreign company building the Waterview Tunnel could avoid New Zealand courts and take the New Zealand Government to court through an ISDS tribunal. They no longer can.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister give the business community an assurance that the Government has a majority to pass the revised TPP legislation, or will he be seeking support from the National Party to help get the agreement over the line?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I can give the business community that assurance, unless the National Party resiles from what it’s already said in the media.

Export Sector—Mānuka Honey

12. to the Minister for Food Safety: Why has the definition of mānuka honey changed from the definition previously announced by the Ministry for Primary Industries on 11 December 2017?

The change is a result of new information from industry that showed that the definition for identifying multifloral mānuka honey was initially set too conservatively and would exclude legitimate multifloral honey from meeting the definition. The definition for monofloral mānuka honey remains unchanged.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Consultation on this issue since 2013 has been exhaustive. I’ve met industry representatives on numerous occasions, and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been working with the industry, which resulted in new information placed before MPI last week, which encouraged MPI to make the changes and, indeed, work to a point now where industry is right behind a definition for mānuka honey.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question, and it was: “What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?” The consultation that happened in the last week does not—the test was set in December. We are asking what consultation that Minister took with the industry in setting that December test, and that was a very specific question.

💬 SPEAKER: Leaving aside the royal “we”, the member can ask that supplementary again.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Lots.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot use the word “lots” as a response to a question in this House, and if he does, then maybe he needs to explain it. That’s just inappropriate, and he’s just using this House—

💬 SPEAKER: Member, sit down. I think he just did, and I think, at this stage of question time, given the fact that the member had two cracks at it, I think he’s probably made his point, and I don’t think I should intervene. Is there a further supplementary?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: When was the issue of fraudulent New Zealand mānuka honey in the export market first raised?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This information was raised by international trading partners in both Britain and China in 2013. Every month since that time, New Zealand’s reputation has been at risk, and the former Government—including that former Minister—dicked around, sat on their hands, and did nothing. We’ve made a decision. We’ve made an alteration as we’ve needed, and now we can assure the honey industry, and this House, and New Zealand exporters that people who buy mānuka honey offshore will be getting what the label says.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify what the member actually said in terms of it may have been an unparliamentary remark.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not absolutely convinced, but if the member thinks he made an unparliamentary remark he will withdraw it.

💬 Hon Member: Well, it wasn’t on the West Coast, but here it is.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, it’s not on the West Coast, no. If the member’s offended I’ll withdraw the remark.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I think the member should just withdraw it.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I withdraw it.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister received advice since legal proceedings were brought against the December definition that the necessary consultation requirements haven’t been met?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Why didn’t the Minister ensure adequate consultation before the more stringent definition was released as to the mānuka honey definition?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There was adequate consultation.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Which test can consumers and markets have confidence in for mānuka honey: the stringent test the Minister announced in December or the lower test announced yesterday as the result of legal proceedings and a failure to consult?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: They can have absolute confidence in both. The first one applies to monofloral mānuka honey, and the second one will now apply to multifloral mānuka honey.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Mr Speaker, I wish that the member would actually confirm that there are two tests now because he—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Has the member got a question?

💬 Hon David Bennett: This is a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s not starting off like one.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said he has got two tests: the test in December and the test released yesterday. The two tests are different. How can he have confidence in both tests for one of New Zealand’s export industries?

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not my responsibility to explain the difference between one flower and several flowers, but I think that’s what the member was saying in Latin.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not actually a difference in that he had a test in December for one product and a different test now, so could we have a supplementary question on that?

💬 SPEAKER: Look—no; the Minister will sit down for a second. If the member wants, if the member can get a tight supplementary that goes to that issue, which is then further explanation, the member can have one more. Away you go.

💬 Hon David Bennett: How can there be two tests for the same product: one released in December that is more stringent and another test released yesterday in which the Minister relaxed the requirements for identifying the ingredient in that test?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There’s one test; there are two different standards: one for multifloral mānuka honey, the other for monofloral mānuka honey. The people who buy that offshore will now know the difference and it will be backed by scientifically backed research and testing.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member is testing me, but have a go.

💬 Hon David Bennett: The minister obviously doesn’t understand that he set a percentage threshold in December of—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I think the member’s had quite a lot of tolerance today.